|
outlook
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Accessing .pst file across networkcomputer which runs Outlook 2003 and other apps: we have all our family and business contacts and a number of email accounts all on the same setup which works really well. The drawback is if somebody wants to access Outlook while somebody else is using the main computer; currently they can't do so on one of the other PCs - I prefer it this way because it means we only have one place to look for a contact or email, rather than several, and there's only one pst file to back up. But it's not ideal. Now, ideally we should have an exchange-type setup as I do at work, whereby anyone can log in to their Outlook account from any PC. However that sounds awful complicated for home use and I'm not sure how feasible it is? What I was wondering, though, was whether it was feasible to have a second copy of Outlook running on a second machine, that was set up only to access the .pst file of out 'main' machine. I know that would mean only one user could access Outlook at once, but nevertheless would it be viable? Is it 'risky' to the integrity of the .pst file (~500Mb) to use it over the network like this? Or is there anything else I'm missing? If so, could I run Outlook 2000 on the second machine (ie, sharing a pst file with Outlook 2003)? Any advice appreciated. David Microsoft has it so that only 1 user at a time can access a PST file. They
also recommend it be on the PC local to the user (hard disk). But in your situation, it might not matter going across the network. But if anyone ever has a problem accessing the PST that way, just end and restart Outlook. Show quoteHide quote "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:aIUil.3505$ax6.3363@newsfe12.ams2... > In our house we have a small network of PCs, in which there's one 'main' > computer which runs Outlook 2003 and other apps: we have all our family > and business contacts and a number of email accounts all on the same setup > which works really well. The drawback is if somebody wants to access > Outlook while somebody else is using the main computer; currently they > can't do so on one of the other PCs - I prefer it this way because it > means we only have one place to look for a contact or email, rather than > several, and there's only one pst file to back up. But it's not ideal. > > Now, ideally we should have an exchange-type setup as I do at work, > whereby anyone can log in to their Outlook account from any PC. However > that sounds awful complicated for home use and I'm not sure how feasible > it is? > > What I was wondering, though, was whether it was feasible to have a second > copy of Outlook running on a second machine, that was set up only to > access the .pst file of out 'main' machine. I know that would mean only > one user could access Outlook at once, but nevertheless would it be > viable? Is it 'risky' to the integrity of the .pst file (~500Mb) to use > it over the network like this? Or is there anything else I'm missing? > > If so, could I run Outlook 2000 on the second machine (ie, sharing a pst > file with Outlook 2003)? > > Any advice appreciated. > David > And if as a result the pst is corrupted, what then?
Show quoteHide quote "Jake" <unkn***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:%23PjZ9pEiJHA.5632@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Microsoft has it so that only 1 user at a time can access a PST file. They > also recommend it be on the PC local to the user (hard disk). But in your > situation, it might not matter going across the network. But if anyone > ever has a problem accessing the PST that way, just end and restart > Outlook. > > > "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:aIUil.3505$ax6.3363@newsfe12.ams2... >> In our house we have a small network of PCs, in which there's one 'main' >> computer which runs Outlook 2003 and other apps: we have all our family >> and business contacts and a number of email accounts all on the same >> setup which works really well. The drawback is if somebody wants to >> access Outlook while somebody else is using the main computer; currently >> they can't do so on one of the other PCs - I prefer it this way because >> it means we only have one place to look for a contact or email, rather >> than several, and there's only one pst file to back up. But it's not >> ideal. >> >> Now, ideally we should have an exchange-type setup as I do at work, >> whereby anyone can log in to their Outlook account from any PC. However >> that sounds awful complicated for home use and I'm not sure how feasible >> it is? >> >> What I was wondering, though, was whether it was feasible to have a >> second copy of Outlook running on a second machine, that was set up only >> to access the .pst file of out 'main' machine. I know that would mean >> only one user could access Outlook at once, but nevertheless would it be >> viable? Is it 'risky' to the integrity of the .pst file (~500Mb) to use >> it over the network like this? Or is there anything else I'm missing? >> >> If so, could I run Outlook 2000 on the second machine (ie, sharing a pst >> file with Outlook 2003)? >> >> Any advice appreciated. >> David >> > > "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message It is viable and as long as your home network is fairly reliable and you news:aIUil.3505$ax6.3363@newsfe12.ams2... > What I was wondering, though, was whether it was feasible to have a second > copy of Outlook running on a second machine, that was set up only to > access the .pst file of out 'main' machine. I know that would mean only > one user could access Outlook at once, but nevertheless would it be > viable? Is it 'risky' to the integrity of the .pst file (~500Mb) to use > it over the network like this? Or is there anything else I'm missing? make frequent backups of the PST, you should be OK. Put the PST in a network share on the main PC and open it on the other PCs. If you make it the default delivery location on those PCs, you'll all have the same folders as your default folders. Keep in mind, though, that if you all configure your accounts to leave messages on the server and all download messages from the same server mailbox, you'll get multiple copies of each message. -- Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] > viable? Is it 'risky' to the integrity of the .pst file (~500Mb) to use It is extremely risky and if you choose to do this you should make frequent > it over the network like this? Or is there anything else I'm missing? backups. Network problems while the pst is open can result in a corrupt pst. > If so, could I run Outlook 2000 on the second machine (ie, sharing a pst I would not recommend it - for starters, you'd need to use the old pst > file with Outlook 2003)? format to use it with Outlook 2000. Outlook 2003 adds some properties that aren't used by outlook 2000. Better is to use an imap acct instead of pop3 (or web access) for mail. For calendar and contacts you could either use a 3rd party app for sharing or email calendar and contacts to yourself (works great if the changes are infrequent). look for tools and methods here: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/sync.asp http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/share.asp -- Show quoteHide quoteDiane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook] Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/ Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com Outlook Tips by email: mailto:dailytips-subscribe-requ***@lists.outlooktips.net EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange: mailto:EMO-NEWSLETTER-SUBSCRIBE-REQU***@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM You can access this newsgroup by visiting http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/default.mspx or point your newsreader to msnews.microsoft.com. "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:aIUil.3505$ax6.3363@newsfe12.ams2... > In our house we have a small network of PCs, in which there's one 'main' > computer which runs Outlook 2003 and other apps: we have all our family > and business contacts and a number of email accounts all on the same setup > which works really well. The drawback is if somebody wants to access > Outlook while somebody else is using the main computer; currently they > can't do so on one of the other PCs - I prefer it this way because it > means we only have one place to look for a contact or email, rather than > several, and there's only one pst file to back up. But it's not ideal. > > Now, ideally we should have an exchange-type setup as I do at work, > whereby anyone can log in to their Outlook account from any PC. However > that sounds awful complicated for home use and I'm not sure how feasible > it is? > > What I was wondering, though, was whether it was feasible to have a second > copy of Outlook running on a second machine, that was set up only to > access the .pst file of out 'main' machine. I know that would mean only > one user could access Outlook at once, but nevertheless would it be > viable? Is it 'risky' to the integrity of the .pst file (~500Mb) to use > it over the network like this? Or is there anything else I'm missing? > > If so, could I run Outlook 2000 on the second machine (ie, sharing a pst > file with Outlook 2003)? > > Any advice appreciated. > David > Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote:
Show quoteHide quote >> viable? Is it 'risky' to the integrity of the .pst file (~500Mb) to Thanks for that Diane - you've convinced me!>> use it over the network like this? Or is there anything else I'm missing? > > It is extremely risky and if you choose to do this you should make > frequent backups. Network problems while the pst is open can result in a > corrupt pst. > >> If so, could I run Outlook 2000 on the second machine (ie, sharing a >> pst file with Outlook 2003)? > > I would not recommend it - for starters, you'd need to use the old pst > format to use it with Outlook 2000. Outlook 2003 adds some properties > that aren't used by outlook 2000. Better is to use an imap acct instead > of pop3 (or web access) for mail. For calendar and contacts you could > either use a 3rd party app for sharing or email calendar and contacts to > yourself (works great if the changes are infrequent). We've been using Yahoo Calendar in favour of Outlook for years - lets me and SWMBO access the family diary at work or at home in real time: wonderful. I know my ISP does do IMAP, but to be honest I've never quite got my head round why I should change from POP3 - can you explain in simple terms how it would benefit my situation? (Not really keen on webmail as our main email accounts for various reasons). Thanks David The yahoo calendar works well for family use, as does gmail's and
hotmail/live calendar. IMAP is a server based store, not all that unlike Exchange except that it doesn't do calendar and contacts. (HTTP protocol and Outlook connector are also server-based stores). Copies of the messages are downloaded and status (read, forwarded etc) is synced back to the server. It's really the best solution for accessing the mailbox from multiple computers. The mail is left on the server and many providers have web access to it as well, so you can check it from any computer. Outlook is not the best IMAP client in the world though - Outlook Express is better. -- Show quoteHide quoteDiane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook] Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/ Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com Outlook Tips by email: mailto:dailytips-subscribe-requ***@lists.outlooktips.net EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange: mailto:EMO-NEWSLETTER-SUBSCRIBE-REQU***@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM You can access this newsgroup by visiting http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/default.mspx or point your newsreader to msnews.microsoft.com. "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:zr%il.19549$NV1.13104@newsfe01.ams2... > Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote: >>> viable? Is it 'risky' to the integrity of the .pst file (~500Mb) to use >>> it over the network like this? Or is there anything else I'm missing? >> >> It is extremely risky and if you choose to do this you should make >> frequent backups. Network problems while the pst is open can result in a >> corrupt pst. >> >>> If so, could I run Outlook 2000 on the second machine (ie, sharing a pst >>> file with Outlook 2003)? >> >> I would not recommend it - for starters, you'd need to use the old pst >> format to use it with Outlook 2000. Outlook 2003 adds some properties >> that aren't used by outlook 2000. Better is to use an imap acct instead >> of pop3 (or web access) for mail. For calendar and contacts you could >> either use a 3rd party app for sharing or email calendar and contacts to >> yourself (works great if the changes are infrequent). > > Thanks for that Diane - you've convinced me! > > We've been using Yahoo Calendar in favour of Outlook for years - lets me > and SWMBO access the family diary at work or at home in real time: > wonderful. > > I know my ISP does do IMAP, but to be honest I've never quite got my head > round why I should change from POP3 - can you explain in simple terms how > it would benefit my situation? (Not really keen on webmail as our main > email accounts for various reasons). > > Thanks > David Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote:
> IMAP is a server based store, not all that unlike Exchange except that Ah OK... sounds good, but given that my ISP allows me a paltry 30Mb > it doesn't do calendar and contacts. (HTTP protocol and Outlook > connector are also server-based stores). Copies of the messages are > downloaded and status (read, forwarded etc) is synced back to the > server. It's really the best solution for accessing the mailbox from > multiple computers. The mail is left on the server and many providers > have web access to it as well, so you can check it from any computer. > Outlook is not the best IMAP client in the world though - Outlook > Express is better. mailbox that effectively rules out that option I think. I believe Googlemail does IMAP, with its almost unlimited mailboxes? but unfortunately I've already ruled it out previously for routine use because of the way it insists on putting the irritating and confusing "davidxxxxxxx@googlemail On Behalf Of davidlobsterpot601@hotmail" on all my outgoing email... Thanks David "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message Are you using the From field to change the sending address? That's not the news:2D0jl.19550$NV1.1251@newsfe01.ams2... > I believe Googlemail does IMAP, with its almost unlimited mailboxes? but > unfortunately I've already ruled it out previously for routine use because > of the way it insists on putting the irritating and confusing > "davidxxxxxxx@googlemail On Behalf Of davidlobsterpot601@hotmail" on all > my outgoing email... correct approach. -- Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] Brian Tillman [MVP - Outlook] wrote:
> "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message I've just tested it out again - this time using IMAP for the first time > news:2D0jl.19550$NV1.1251@newsfe01.ams2... > >> I believe Googlemail does IMAP, with its almost unlimited mailboxes? >> but unfortunately I've already ruled it out previously for routine use >> because of the way it insists on putting the irritating and confusing >> "davidxxxxxxx@googlemail On Behalf Of davidlobsterpot601@hotmail" on >> all my outgoing email... > > Are you using the From field to change the sending address? That's not > the correct approach. - I simply configured a new Outlook 2003 account exactly as per the instructions provided by google here: <http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=77661> It works absolutely fine, but when I open the test message which I sent has the following in the 'From' field: David Lobster [davidlobs***@gmail.com on behalf of David Lobster (David's gmail IMAP account) [davidlobs***@mydomain.com] (where "Lobster" substitutes for my real surname, and 'mydomain' for my real email address) Last time I looked into this issue I found a lot of people were complaining in forums etc that there was no way around it (I think it's a 'feature' of Outlook?!) - I'd love to know if it's actually possible, as it's certainly not acceptable to me as it is! David
Show quote
Hide quote
"Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message So, you're trying to send a message that appears to come from news:n5jjl.8283$n_6.2729@newsfe22.ams2... > I've just tested it out again - this time using IMAP for the first time - > I simply configured a new Outlook 2003 account exactly as per the > instructions provided by google here: > <http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=77661> > It works absolutely fine, but when I open the test message which I sent > has the following in the 'From' field: > > David Lobster [davidlobs***@gmail.com on behalf of David Lobster (David's > gmail IMAP account) [davidlobs***@mydomain.com] > > (where "Lobster" substitutes for my real surname, and 'mydomain' for my > real email address) davidlobs***@mydomain.com but you're using the Google mail server to do it, correct? Can you be explicit in describing your account configuration, particularly the dialogue where you specify the sending address? -- Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] Brian Tillman [MVP - Outlook] wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message Yep.> news:n5jjl.8283$n_6.2729@newsfe22.ams2... > >> I've just tested it out again - this time using IMAP for the first >> time - I simply configured a new Outlook 2003 account exactly as per >> the instructions provided by google here: >> <http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=77661> >> It works absolutely fine, but when I open the test message which I >> sent has the following in the 'From' field: >> >> David Lobster [davidlobs***@gmail.com on behalf of David Lobster >> (David's gmail IMAP account) [davidlobs***@mydomain.com] >> >> (where "Lobster" substitutes for my real surname, and 'mydomain' for >> my real email address) > > So, you're trying to send a message that appears to come from > davidlobs***@mydomain.com but you're using the Google mail server to do > it, correct? Can you be explicit in describing your account > configuration, particularly the dialogue where you specify the sending Here's a screendump of the dialogue box:> address? http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=outlooknr4.jpg There's nowhere to manually set the "From" field. From what I've found out though, this "on behalf of" thing is an issue with gmail which a lot of people have a problem with - it seems they do it to authenticate sent email to avoid it being identified as spam: Google acknowledge the issue here (see 'Note' about halfway down this page): http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=22370 - apparently though it's only later versions of Outlook which display the "on behalf of" thing. Here's a thread with hundreds of people whining about it!: <http://groups.google.com/group/Gmail-Help-Message-Delivery-en/browse_thread/thread/b27f0e9baa0c0ffc/44481400a1959a39> Maybe the answer is to use Gmail/IMAP for incoming email and my ISP for outgoing - however that doesn't address my original problem as I wouldn't have all my sent email in one place - it would be scattered across .pst files on several PCs. (Unless there was a way for Outlook to automatically bcc all my outgoing email to a particular online mailbox - which as far as I know, there isn't? David "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message The company for which I work blocks imageshack. I can't see it. Can you news:voYjl.22064$aJ3.6895@newsfe23.ams2... > Here's a screendump of the dialogue box: > http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=outlooknr4.jpg > There's nowhere to manually set the "From" field. post it on xsolive.com? The sender address is the address you specify in "E-mail Address". -- Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] Brian Tillman [MVP - Outlook] wrote:
> "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message OK, try www.xsolive.com\Outlook Screen shots\lobster's outlook.jpg, but > news:voYjl.22064$aJ3.6895@newsfe23.ams2... > >> Here's a screendump of the dialogue box: >> http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=outlooknr4.jpg >> There's nowhere to manually set the "From" field. > > The company for which I work blocks imageshack. I can't see it. Can > you post it on xsolive.com? > The sender address is the address you specify in "E-mail Address". yes, that's what I did with my sender address. David "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message I'll look at what happens for me. It may take a few days, though.news:p6bkl.31628$Nn6.2881@newsfe03.ams2... > OK, try www.xsolive.com\Outlook Screen shots\lobster's outlook.jpg, but > yes, that's what I did with my sender address. -- Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] > Google acknowledge the issue here (see 'Note' about halfway down this All versions should display on behalf of. If gmail is adding the gmail > page): > http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=22370 - apparently > though it's only later versions of Outlook which display the "on behalf > of" thing. address as the sender field, you can't do much about it - it is from one address on behalf of the other. If you just need messages stored in the gmail from, you can use the isp smtp and save to the gmail from field, no need to BCC messages to the gmail address. -- Show quoteHide quoteDiane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook] Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/ Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com Outlook Tips by email: mailto:dailytips-subscribe-requ***@lists.outlooktips.net EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange: mailto:EMO-NEWSLETTER-SUBSCRIBE-REQU***@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM You can access this newsgroup by visiting http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/default.mspx or point your newsreader to msnews.microsoft.com. "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:voYjl.22064$aJ3.6895@newsfe23.ams2... > Brian Tillman [MVP - Outlook] wrote: >> "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:n5jjl.8283$n_6.2729@newsfe22.ams2... >> >>> I've just tested it out again - this time using IMAP for the first >>> time - I simply configured a new Outlook 2003 account exactly as per the >>> instructions provided by google here: >>> <http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=77661> >>> It works absolutely fine, but when I open the test message which I sent >>> has the following in the 'From' field: >>> >>> David Lobster [davidlobs***@gmail.com on behalf of David Lobster >>> (David's gmail IMAP account) [davidlobs***@mydomain.com] >>> >>> (where "Lobster" substitutes for my real surname, and 'mydomain' for my >>> real email address) >> >> So, you're trying to send a message that appears to come from >> davidlobs***@mydomain.com but you're using the Google mail server to do >> it, correct? > > Yep. > > Can you be explicit in describing your account >> configuration, particularly the dialogue where you specify the sending >> address? > > Here's a screendump of the dialogue box: > http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=outlooknr4.jpg > There's nowhere to manually set the "From" field. > > From what I've found out though, this "on behalf of" thing is an issue > with gmail which a lot of people have a problem with - it seems they do it > to authenticate sent email to avoid it being identified as spam: > > Google acknowledge the issue here (see 'Note' about halfway down this > page): > http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=22370 - apparently > though it's only later versions of Outlook which display the "on behalf > of" thing. > > Here's a thread with hundreds of people whining about it!: > <http://groups.google.com/group/Gmail-Help-Message-Delivery-en/browse_thread/thread/b27f0e9baa0c0ffc/44481400a1959a39> > > Maybe the answer is to use Gmail/IMAP for incoming email and my ISP for > outgoing - however that doesn't address my original problem as I wouldn't > have all my sent email in one place - it would be scattered across .pst > files on several PCs. (Unless there was a way for Outlook to > automatically bcc all my outgoing email to a particular online mailbox - > which as far as I know, there isn't? > > David > > > > > > Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote:
>> Google acknowledge the issue here (see 'Note' about halfway down this Sorry Diane, could you run that past me again a bit slower!?>> page): >> http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=22370 - apparently >> though it's only later versions of Outlook which display the "on >> behalf of" thing. > > All versions should display on behalf of. If gmail is adding the gmail > address as the sender field, you can't do much about it - it is from one > address on behalf of the other. > > If you just need messages stored in the gmail from, you can use the isp > smtp and save to the gmail from field, no need to BCC messages to the > gmail address. Yes, if I has a method of automatically (and therefore 100% reliably) bCC'ing all me emails to, say, a particular gmail account, I think that would open up a method of storing all my sent mail somewhere online, which would solve my main issue. But not sure what you mean above? Thanks David Google is always going to use the on behalf of because it adds the gmail
acct as the sender. So you'll need to configure outlook to send mail using your ISP SMTP server - you'll put the smtp server in the acct setup, in place of the outgoing gmail server name. Be sure to properly configure outgoing server authentication - its under More Settings. Are you using Outlook 2003 or 2007 ? If 2007, you can set a sent folder in the More Settings dialog. If 2003, you need to use Rules to move sent items. -- Show quoteHide quoteDiane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook] Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/ Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com Outlook Tips by email: mailto:dailytips-subscribe-requ***@lists.outlooktips.net EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange: mailto:EMO-NEWSLETTER-SUBSCRIBE-REQU***@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM You can access this newsgroup by visiting http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/default.mspx or point your newsreader to msnews.microsoft.com. "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:o9bkl.31629$Nn6.17512@newsfe03.ams2... > Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote: >>> Google acknowledge the issue here (see 'Note' about halfway down this >>> page): >>> http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=22370 - apparently >>> though it's only later versions of Outlook which display the "on behalf >>> of" thing. >> >> All versions should display on behalf of. If gmail is adding the gmail >> address as the sender field, you can't do much about it - it is from one >> address on behalf of the other. >> >> If you just need messages stored in the gmail from, you can use the isp >> smtp and save to the gmail from field, no need to BCC messages to the >> gmail address. > > Sorry Diane, could you run that past me again a bit slower!? > > Yes, if I has a method of automatically (and therefore 100% reliably) > bCC'ing all me emails to, say, a particular gmail account, I think that > would open up a method of storing all my sent mail somewhere online, which > would solve my main issue. But not sure what you mean above? > > Thanks > David >
Show quote
Hide quote
"Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote in message After a bit of testing, I found out that no matter what I put in the "E-mail news:n5jjl.8283$n_6.2729@newsfe22.ams2... > I've just tested it out again - this time using IMAP for the first time - I > simply configured a new Outlook 2003 account exactly as per the instructions > provided by google here: > <http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=77661> > It works absolutely fine, but when I open the test message which I sent has > the following in the 'From' field: > > David Lobster [davidlobs***@gmail.com on behalf of David Lobster (David's > gmail IMAP account) [davidlobs***@mydomain.com] > > (where "Lobster" substitutes for my real surname, and 'mydomain' for my real > email address) Address" field for a Google Mail IMAP account, the message aleays appears to come from my Google Mail address. No "on behalf of" or anything; gmail simply ignores the field. -- Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot***@hotmail.com> wrote David,> What I was wondering, though, was whether it was feasible to > have a second copy of Outlook running on a second machine, that > was set up only to access the .pst file of out 'main' machine. > I know that would mean only one user could access Outlook at > once, but nevertheless would it be viable? Is it 'risky' to > the integrity of the .pst file (~500Mb) to use it over the > network like this? Or is there anything else I'm missing? Pst files across a network is unsupported and not recommended. Personal folder files are unsupported over a LAN or over a WAN link <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/297019> Network Stored PST files ... don't do it! <http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/01/21/network-stored-pst-files-don-t-do-it.aspx> PST on a Network Folder - Not! http://msmvps.com/blogs/kwsupport/archive/2008/01/23/pst-on-a-network-folder-not.aspx Regards, Leonard Agoado ago***@msn.com  
Thread options
Other interesting topics
Help settiing up Out of Office reply in outlook 2K7
Quit Outlook and revert to Yahoo outlook 2007n upgrade contacts not available Outlook 2000 Calendar Text Entry query. Help! Free Software & Purchased Software Can't receive email in Outlook 07 Dealing with over-the-limit mailbox users Moving Outlook Contact Info from Old to New Computer over Network E-mails from a senders in my Block Senders List Merging Multiple contacts |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
